My firm recollection is that Jay pointed out that his application
couldn't tell whether an alert entry was two days old (and hadn't
been fixed) or had just happened, if the implementation didn't include
the prtAlertTime object in the alert table entry.

Its also useful to the human user of the management application
to know when the problem occurred, i.e., how long the condition has
been in existence.

This problem happens especially when the management application
is first fired up (after the Printer has been running, for possibly
many days).

Of course, Printers clean up alert entries when the condition goes
away, so we are not requiring the prtAlertTime object so that management
application can ignore old alert entries.

We also asked the members whether it was a problem to require
prtAlertTime and everyone agreed that it was worth the extra
cost/effort.

Tom

At 10:53 11/19/1997 PST, lpyoung@lexmark.com wrote:>>I am finally getting around to gathering up the justifications>for the changes between RFC1759 and the new Printer MIB. I have>been able to collect the justification for all changes except>for one. The change that I can not find any justification for>is the move of prtAlertTime from the prtAlertTimeGroup to the>prtAlertTableGroup and the subsequent deprecation of the>prtAlertTimeGroup. I have searched both the PMP and PWG mail>archives and while I can find mail that discusses the change,>I can not find any mail that says why the change was made or>why the change was required.>Help?>Lloyd>------------------------------------------------------------>Lloyd Young Lexmark International, Inc.>Senior Program Manager Dept. C14L/Bldg. 035-3>Strategic Alliances 740 New Circle Road NW>internet: lpyoung@lexmark.com Lexington, KY 40550>Phone: (606) 232-5150 Fax: (606) 232-6740>>>>